Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:41:44 +0200
From:   Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.1-rc5
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whajv8Fw2VcBqZUs0hfx1Dq4fYj3TEEx4yfR3E8+rLS1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHk-=wjvcuyCQGnfOhooaL1H4H63qXO=xgo+9yncSOG=eK+kbA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190415051919.GA31481@infradead.org>
        <CAHk-=wj7jgMOVFW0tiU-X+zhg6+Rn7mEBTej+f26rV3zXezOSA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190416110906.6c773aff@mschwideX1>
        <20190416140658.2cb73a3f@mschwideX1>
        <CAHk-=wjKi5C+Onhp5Vs5BQxHbaBud9M3cTS-S6Tr9yDY4dS-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAHk-=wj2SW0Zno0Yn=S9wrsmHOKV0FiFPiPS4TM=Gn8yjfYXAg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190417094637.51ad4c67@mschwideX1>
        <20190417100244.42e29736@mschwideX1>
        <CAHk-=wj5j-zMo7hVNxiw3+5L2d1WQVm3x4fbpg=OXLzDh8FhYg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190418100218.0a4afd51@mschwideX1>
        <CAHk-=whajv8Fw2VcBqZUs0hfx1Dq4fYj3TEEx4yfR3E8+rLS1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20190418204144.16adf2a0@mschwideX1>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:49:32 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:02 AM Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The problematic lines in the generic gup code are these three:
> >
> > 1845:   pmdp = pmd_offset(&pud, addr);
> > 1888:   pudp = pud_offset(&p4d, addr);
> > 1916:   p4dp = p4d_offset(&pgd, addr);
> >
> > Passing the pointer of a *copy* of a page table entry to pxd_offset() does
> > not work with the page table folding on s390.  
> 
> Hmm. I wonder why. x86 too does the folding thing for the p4d and pud case.
> 
> The folding works with the local copy just the same way it works with
> the orignal value.

The difference is that with the static page table folding pgd_offset()
does the index calculation of the actual hardware top-level table. With
dynamic page table folding as s390 is doing it, if the task does not use
a 5-level page table pgd_offset() will see a pgd_index() of 0, the indexing
of the actual top-level table is done later with p4d_offset(), pud_offset()
or pmd_offset(). 

As an example, with a three level page table we have three indexes x/y/z.
The common code "thinks" 5 indexing steps, with static folding the index
sequence is x 0 0 y z. With dynamic folding the sequence is 0 0 x y z.
By moving the first indexing operation to pgd_offset the static sequence
does not add an index to a non-dereferenced pointer to a stack variable,
the dynamic sequence does.

> But I see that s390 does some other kind of folding and does that
> addition of the p*d_index() unconditionally.
> 
> I guess that does mean that s390 will just have to have its own walker.
> 
> For the issue of the page refcount overflow it really isn't a huge
> deal. Adding the refcount checking is simple (see the example patch I
> gave for powerpc - you'll just have a couple of extra cases since you
> do it all, rather than just the special hugetlb cases).
> 
> Obviously in general it would have been nicer to share as much code as
> possible, but let's not make things unnecessarily complex if s390 is
> just fundamentally different..

It would have been nice to use the generic code (less bugs) but not at
the price of over-complicating things. And that page table folding thing
always makes my head hurt.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.